tweeky writes:
"CUsalin is right, its pointless to try and discuss this online."
________________________________
Exactly. That's why the Port has been asked to join in seeking a declaratory judgement from the court to see if a cable park that obstructs navigation can be built in the Columbia River waters in the boat basin.

tweeky writes:
"CUsalin is right, its pointless to try and discuss this online."
________________________________
Exactly. That's why the Port has been asked to join in seeking a declaratory judgement from the court to see if a cable park that obstructs navigation can be built in the Columbia River waters in the boat basin.

Yeah, I guess this needs to be defined. It will be interesting to see what the legal-beagles come up with.

Phazle - are you able to shed any light onto projected prodedure? Timelines to a declaration?

"Phazle - are you able to shed any light onto projected prodedure? Timelines to a declaration?"
______________________
don't know the exact timeline, but imagine the request will be filed before the Port decides one way or the other on the lease with Naito. The Port has been asked to join in. Don't know if they have replied to the request yet or not.

Finally, I'm no lawyer either, and I'm certainly not a judge, so I'm going to keep out of the legal fray - but eitherway - and if need be, it appears those matters might have to be addressed by the courts. I can only hope it doesn't come to that... but if disagreement is strong enough, I guess that's where legal arguements belong and are ultimately decided.

We can wax on about the legal stuff, but none will amount to a hill-o-beans unless one party or the other says "uncle" on the advice of legal counsel or a court rules on it. I'm confident The Port has good lawyers and will make a well calculated decision regarding their legal standings and whether or not they are worth arguing over in court.

I agree with you on these points. Since most positions pro and con have been addressed repeatedly, we now have to see how it plays out. No sense continuing to bore each other with our personal opinions. I only hope we don't see another 25 years of non-improvement of this basin, which hasn't changed since the boat-works closed (except for removal of the metal building.)

Fortunately the basin will begin to be improved regardless of wether the cable park goes in or not. The south side will have public access, a walkway and nice lawn and a commercial building with a restaurant, coffee shop and other concessions. The west bank will take a couple more years but we hope to work with the port to get that fixed up with a walkway and improved access as well. Wouldn't a nice beach or swim/ launch are be great? Hood River residents did it before with the waterfront park and we certainly can do it again!

It will be a very different place in the future and hopefully open and free to the public for generations to come.

In regards to paying for swim access: you pay for access all the time. At the event site, at the Hatch, at Mosier. It's because dollars are required to keep amenities going. We're lucky enough here in the gorge that we have access in a lot of places for free - but even though we don't pay a fee at the gate, we support those areas in other ways. For the people that are willing to pay for it, the cable park offers *highly* enhanced access. As someone else said, I can't use the boat docks down at the marina for fishing or swimming or paddle access, because they're locked and exclusively for the use of the Hood River Yacht Club. The public trust doctrine clearly makes allowance for these things (In fact, the reason IT exists is so things like this CAN exist!)

Phazle: your argument about freedom to navigate amounts to nothing. I - and any wakeboarder - have the freedom to navigate too. Fine. Let's ditch the buoy line. Even beginner wakeboarders are going to have no problem navigating safely around the SUP'ers and kayakers. Since the cable park will have a pretty clear path around the obstacles, you guys will know to give space to the riders hitting obstacles, and you'll do that, since you're all about being friendly and sharing the water, right?

CUSailin: The proximity of the boat basin to the willing developer is what makes this the only reasonable place for a cable park. Nevermind the fact that the central location will be great for kids without cars, families looking to enjoy Hood River, whatever. There's still room for plenty of other paddlesports access here in town, and other places. The difference is this: the cost of improving an area for paddlesports is monumentally less than improving it for cable park riding. Those two reasons are why it's "here or nowhere", and why I deem it reasonable that paddlesports, which have a *ridiculously large area of water in which to participate* can be helped to move to other areas that allow them, and us, full enjoyment of the water.

Funny, I'd like to see how many times opponents have discussed the idea of sharing the boat basin. I bring it up every time, and no one even acknowledges it or discusses. Just goes to show how narrow-minded the opposition to this project is.

I suspect the Port already has a pretty damn good idea that the court would say "Do what you want." If they *didn't*, I don't think they would be wasting this time polling public opinion. The bummer is what I said earlier: if the port decides "no", it's because of threatened litigation costs and hassle.
I'm tired of being polite about this so I'm calling this like I see it: A lot of older people who are retired and have the benefits of time and assets to argue about this have decided they don't like the cable park. Your decision was made before you even understood the facts, and at no point were you were willing to entertain the idea of sharing the space. You've become set in your ways, and completely un-willing to even entertain the thought that something new might be something better than what we have now. You feel entitled, and you can't really explain why. Do I think recreation areas that are wind-protected and providing of calm water are important to the community? Absolutely. Everyone deserves the right to recreate in ways they enjoy. That's why we named our group "RECREATE". There's so many options within our city limits that we can improve to provide better water access. I'm DYING to take all the energy I've directed toward this and improve the launch at the Hook or the marina or Hood River Inn beach. But you guys aren't listening to that -you only want to stop the cable because you've convinced yourself it's the devil incarnate, and that evil-doing wakeboarders are going to make you frown.

Because you have those advantages of time, money, and knowledge of how to game the political and bureaucratic system, and are willing to stretch the truth, spin the facts, or lie outright, your voices ring loud. But does that make them correct? Your champion, Mr. Brent Foster, has been caught lying already and was suspeneded by the Oregon Bar once. What makes you think he hasn't been duplicitous in these proceedings *multiple* times? Just because you guys have adopted a mob mentality, complete with threats of litigation and a hardline stance that "NO CABLEPARK WILL EXIST IN MY WATER!", does might make right?

The proponents of this project - including the Naitos - have been open and transparent about this project from the start. Willing to discuss nearly any iteration of ideas that allow the cable park to function in a financially feasible manner. But you guys won't have conversation. Threats, litigation, bullshit.

Twenty years ago you were probably battling for beach access here in the Gorge. Now, you've become the person you battled against. To me, that's really disgusting. When I was a kid, I was taught that learning to share with others was a sign of maturity. I guess you guys haven't learned that lesson yet.___________________________________________________________
FORMERLY of www.windsurfingmag.com

In regards to paying for swim access: you pay for access all the time. At the event site, at the Hatch, at Mosier. (You pay for parking not use of the water= Huge difference) It's because dollars are required to keep amenities going. We're lucky enough here in the gorge that we have access in a lot of places for free - but even though we don't pay a fee at the gate, we support those areas in other ways. For the people that are willing to pay for it, the cable park offers *highly* enhanced access. As someone else said, I can't use the boat docks down at the marina for fishing or swimming or paddle access, because they're locked and exclusively for the use of the Hood River Yacht Club. The public trust doctrine clearly makes allowance for these things (In fact, the reason IT exists is so things like this CAN exist!) (The public use doctrine is what is relevant, NOT the public trust doctrine. Marinas, docks even house boats that don't impede or unreasonably block the river are excepted. Cable parks...not so much.)

Phazle: your argument about freedom to navigate amounts to nothing. I - and any wakeboarder - have the freedom to navigate too. Fine. Let's ditch the buoy line. Even beginner wakeboarders are going to have no problem navigating safely around the SUP'ers and kayakers. Since the cable park will have a pretty clear path around the obstacles, you guys will know to give space to the riders hitting obstacles, and you'll do that, since you're all about being friendly and sharing the water, right?(You can't wakeboard in the basin or around other SUP's kayakers or non motorized craft of swimmers. Read up on your Oregon boating laws,Josh)

CUSailin: The proximity of the boat basin to the willing developer is what makes this the only reasonable place for a cable park. Nevermind the fact that the central location will be great for kids without cars, families looking to enjoy Hood River, whatever. There's still room for plenty of other paddlesports access here in town, and other places. The difference is this: the cost of improving an area for paddlesports is monumentally less than improving it for cable park riding. Those two reasons are why it's "here or nowhere"( sounds like our "all or nothing" attitude is shared by you as well) and why I deem it reasonable that paddlesports, which have a *ridiculously large area of water in which to participate*( not when its nukin! Try growing a sport without a calm and safe place to learn. Like a ski resort with only double black diamond runs and no bunny slopes we need the basin for those who don't dare go out in the main river channel) can be helped to move to other areas that allow them, and us, full enjoyment of the water.

Funny, I'd like to see how many times opponents have discussed the idea of sharing the boat basin. (We are against a cable park being built in the basin. Whey would change our beliefs and values for the sake of "sharing" You wont be sharing the area the cable park takes up) I bring it up every time, and no one even acknowledges it or discusses. Just goes to show how narrow-minded(ad hominem attack. Total weak sauce argument!) the opposition to this project is.

I suspect the Port already has a pretty damn good idea that the court would say "Do what you want."( Did you not read the ports legal findings that said this is a huge greay area that would most likely be decided in court? Read up, Josh) If they *didn't*, I don't think they would be wasting this time polling public opinion. The bummer is what I said earlier: if the port decides "no", it's because of threatened litigation costs and hassle(Please site the legal threats. There weren't any threats at the meeting only an invitation to the port to ask a court to define public USE doctrine as it relates to the basin. No legal there there.)
I'm tired of being polite about this so I'm calling this like I see it:( We can tell)A lot of older people who are retired and have the benefits of time and assets to argue about this have decided they don't like the cable park. Your decision was made before you even understood the facts(do you have proof of this?), and at no point were you were willing to entertain the idea of sharing the space. You've become set in your ways, and completely un-willing to even entertain the thought that something new might be something better than what we have now.( We are embracing the progress that the hotel and commercial building and developed west bank will bring the basin, just not the cable park.) You feel entitled( you mean like a bunch of kiters who need more of our waterfront so they can play when its not windy?), and you can't really explain why(We had 33 speakers to your 15 explaining that at the port meeting). Do I think recreation areas that are wind-protected and providing of calm water are important to the community? Absolutely. Everyone deserves the right to recreate in ways they enjoy. That's why we named our group "RECREATE". There's so many options within our city limits that we can improve to provide better water access.(Such as...???) I'm DYING to take all the energy I've directed toward this and improve the launch at the Hook or the marina or Hood River Inn beach. But you guys aren't listening to that -you only want to stop the cable because you've convinced yourself it's the devil incarnate, and that evil-doing wakeboarders are going to make you frown. ( seriously?)

Because you have those advantages of time, money, and knowledge of how to game the political( Like the Naitos?) and bureaucratic system, and are willing to stretch the truth, spin the facts, or lie outright, your voices ring loud. But does that make them correct? Your champion, Mr. Brent Foster, has been caught lying already and was suspeneded by the Oregon Bar once.(Ad hominem attack...shows desparation, Josh.) What makes you think he hasn't been duplicitous in these proceedings *multiple* times? Just because you guys have adopted a mob mentality, complete with threats of litigation and a hardline stance that "NO CABLEPARK WILL EXIST IN MY WATER!", does might make right? ( It doesn't make us wrong either.)

The proponents of this project - including the Naitos - have been open and transparent about this project from the start.(Im calling BS on this one!!! They have worked behind closed doors only with parties who will directly profit off this. They are using you to get a hotel and you have fallen for it.)Willing to discuss nearly any iteration of ideas that allow the cable park to function in a financially feasible manner. But you guys won't have conversation.(We had a private meeting with the Naitos several months ago. We have listened and so have they.) Threats, litigation, bullshit.

Twenty years ago you were probably battling for beach access here( And now your are threatening to take it away) in the Gorge. Now, you've become the person you battled against. To me, that's really disgusting. When I was a kid, I was taught that learning to share(That is the only argument you have now. "They won't share the basin so we can not share it with them when we guild a cable park. Circular logic. Very weak sauce.)with others was a sign of maturity. I guess you guys haven't learned that lesson yet.

Josh, you are loosing it my friend. Get a grip and understand that we don't see things the same way you do. We don't agree and thats OK. You have made your arguments and so have we. I would love to see this go to a Port district vote of residents and move on. The basin is a great place and will be even better with the planned developments on the south bank. We plan on keeping it open and free to the public for generations to come. Regardless of who wins "friends" is dedicated to improving the west bank access with paths, beaches and improved wildlife habitat. Many of our members built the new waterfront park and they are ready to do it all over again.

Peace to you my friend. None of this is personal so please take this in stride. Continue to fight for what you believe and we will do the same. Hopefully when this is all over we can sit back and have a drink as fellow Hood River residents and not as each others opposition.

Josh, I'm sorry you feel the way that you do and that you have to resort to generalizing a group of people with whom you disagree and attacking their credibility. With all due respect, your point is marginalized when you resort to such tactics. You obviously fail to understand that the opinions and beliefs of others, have just as much value as your own beliefs and opinions.

From what I have seem here, I have to disagree with the name of your personal website, and I can say with certainty that I don't need Josh. What we do need are people capable of rational discussion without resorting to character assassination.

With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in whatever you aspire to.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum